Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Joshua A.C. Newman, September 19, 2005, 12:22:38 PM
Quote from: glyphmonkey on September 20, 2005, 12:18:46 PMA non-secret bidding system isn't random. I don't know what's going to happen, of course, but I can figure out what you'll want and bid appropriately. Consider a mechanic like Poker where I bid one, you bid two, I bid three, you bid five... until eventually I don't have faith in my hand enough to bid more. Now consider changing that "faith" to "desire", the desire to win this conflict: the more I want my character to win the conflict, the more I'm willing to bid, the more I'm willing to spend. It's definitely not random. It's no more random than a move in a strategy game: I don't know what you're going to do next, but I have a pretty good idea, and when you do something else, everyone goes "ooOOooooo!"
Quote from: glyphmonkey on September 20, 2005, 12:18:46 PM3: A non-secret bidding system isn't random. I don't know what's going to happen, of course, but I can figure out what you'll want and bid appropriately. Consider a mechanic like Poker where I bid one, you bid two, I bid three, you bid five... until eventually I don't have faith in my hand enough to bid more. Now consider changing that "faith" to "desire", the desire to win this conflict: the more I want my character to win the conflict, the more I'm willing to bid, the more I'm willing to spend. It's definitely not random. It's no more random than a move in a strategy game: I don't know what you're going to do next, but I have a pretty good idea, and when you do something else, everyone goes "ooOOooooo!"
QuoteYes, agreed, that's not random. What I was talking about was secret bidding. Bidding for a scene in Universalis is secret (to my understanding). Everyone picks a number of coins, holds them in their hands and they are all presented simultaniously. The one with the most coins frames the next scene. That's pretty random in my eyes.
Quote from: Sven Seeland on September 21, 2005, 06:58:57 AMWell, I'm certainly not looking at a mathematically precise term for randomness here. What I mean is "uncertainty" and that's probably what Josh is talking about as well (I hope).
Quote from: It was probably Ron whoFortune A method of resolution employing unpredictable non-behavioral elements, usually based on physical objects such as dice, cards, or similar. See also DFK and Resolution.
QuoteYou have to consider that even with the dice it's not just "pick a number and hope it gets rolled". You have rules telling you which sides are going to be which result and those usually vary based on the situation you're in. Therefore you can just as easily get a feel for a dice roll as you can for a person. Depending on who you're playing with it may actually be harder to estimate the bidding of the other person (good pokerface, never met that guy before, can't get into his/her head, etc) than it might be to judge the dice. People tend to be more sponteaous and most of all more complex than dice.
QuoteWhen we're in a secret bid I never really know how much that other person is really invested in the situation, what their agenda is, what mood they're in, etc. Sure, I can guess, but usually it's not much more than that.
Quote from: glyphmonkey on September 21, 2005, 01:07:12 PMWhat I'm interested in here (this is gelling in my head as this thread goes on, and I thank everyone here for sticking with me while I hash it out) is how to get the uncertainty of dice without removing the human element and responsibility.
Quote from: glyphmonkey on September 21, 2005, 01:07:12 PMNear as I can tell, you want dice. Lest I've been unclear, I'll say it directly: Dice are cool! I have a lot of dice. I use them frequently. They have definite functions.But I want to know what those functions are, and then figure out which ones come inherently from their randomness and which parts can come from other functions.
Quote from: contracycle on September 30, 2005, 07:14:21 AMWhat dice DO is impose the uncaring universe upon the best laid plans of mice and men.
Quote from: glyphmonkey on September 30, 2005, 12:34:57 PMBut that effect doesn't exist in fiction. Everything that happens is the result of a decision. So I'm not sure — that's not rhetoric; I'm really not sure — what benefit they confer.
QuoteYou said yourself the key to why the LP is right about this: two people do not agree, they resort to a random decision, and they accept the results of the dice as direction. The important thing is their mutual acceptance. If they don't both accept it, at least grudgingly, it's just a number on a die.
Quote from: contracycle on October 03, 2005, 05:36:26 AMNope, it doesn't have to have any form of direction - the number can just be a number, like "d6 gold coins" on a pick pocket table. As soon as the die stops rolling, the number enters the SIS literally. Try walking away from a craps game because you didn't like the number you rolled and see how significant the PRIOR agreement to abide by the dice can be.
Quote from: xenopulse on September 19, 2005, 06:40:32 PMRandomness also introduces an element of risk and temptation. Why do you roll for Humanity in Sorcerer instead of just losing a point whenever you do something that warrants a roll? Now, I hate to guess at what the reasons for certain design features are, but for me, it makes it more of a temptation. If I knew I'd lose a point no matter what, I'd be much less likely to do it than now that I'm just risking it and could get away with it.
Quote from: Andrew Morris on October 03, 2005, 11:04:04 AMI don't think that was the point. Sure, the dice came up with a number, and that number happens to be an actual number that's being accepted into the SIS, but that doesn't mean it's just a number on a die, with no effect on the SIS, which, I believe, was the concept Josh was putting forward.
QuoteThe number on the dice represents something -- the number of dice in the SIS. It's not just a number on the table.
QuoteA better example of "just a number on a die" would be if we were playing D&D, and in the middle of a battle, I decide that I should kill d6 enemies in one round, and I roll my d6. Yeah, a five! I klled five enemies. What do you mean, no I didn't? In this case, there's no agreement, and the die roll has no effect on the SIS. It's just a number on die on the table.
QuoteCraps has nothing to do with SIS, the Lumpley Principle, or RPGs at all. It's a totally different animal.
Quote from: contracycle on October 03, 2005, 11:41:12 AMI'm not sure Josh was putting any proposition forward - he was asking what dice do. IMo, the significance of dice is precisely that they are non-human.
Quote from: contracycle on October 03, 2005, 11:41:12 AMThe numbers on the dice usually represent something. However, they can be used literally. There is no principled reason they cannot be read straight into the SIS as a literal value. In fact, thinking about this over the weekend, I am quite struck by the fact that we use numbers-as-numbers so seldom. None of this countradicts the general case that dice are almost always representative and therefore require interpretation and/or confirmation before anything enters the SIS.[...]No thats a bad example. If I have a rule from the book saying something like: "Ranger special ability: kill 1d6 orcs per turn", and then I roll a 5, then I have killed five orcs. And if you or anyone were to attempt to overule that, it would require a special plea on your part to impose your chosen vision of what the SIS should be onto the tacit perception we all have simply by observing the roll.[...]The example was bad because you inserted the condition "I decide". Thats not relevant - I'm talking about rules systems external to human choice - the imposition of the impartial world.
Quote from: contracycle on October 03, 2005, 11:41:12 AMAll games have a social contract, and gambling games have an especially important social contract, so important that violating it can bring upon your head the same sorts for penalties as violating the social contract of the state: death or serious injury.
Quote from: Andrew Morris on October 03, 2005, 12:07:46 PMTotal disagreement here. There is no possibility of reading anything straight into the SIS. Anything that becomes part of the SIS must be agreed upon by the human participants. Even if the example were needing a random number in the SIS between one and 20 and rolling a d20 to determine it, it would still need to be filtered through the agreement of the participants. This could either be a decision made on the fly ("Sounds good to me.") or it could be in the written rules ("Look, it says right here on page 385 that you roll a d20 to get a random number between one and 20." "Oh, okay."). Everything that enters the SIS requires validation by the participants. There's always a choice, even if it's the choice to abide by the written rules.
Quote from: contracycle on October 03, 2005, 11:41:12 AMAgain, while I respect your opinion, I simply don't agree with it. It's just a matter of whether you consider this relevantly similar or not. Also, debating the similarity of gambling games to RPGs is a bit off-topic. If you want to take it to a new thread, I'd be happy to discuss it.